R A Agha1,2, A J Fowler3, S-Y Lee4, B Gundogan5, K Whitehurst5, H K Sagoo6, K J L Jeong7, D G Altman8, D P Orgill9. 1. Balliol College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Departments of Plastic Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Departments of Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. University of Southampton Medical School, Southampton, UK. 5. University College London Medical School, London, UK. 6. King's College London GKT School of Medical Education, London, UK. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, James Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth, UK. 8. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 9. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series. METHODS: A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues. RESULTS: Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent). CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful.
BACKGROUND: Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series. METHODS: A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues. RESULTS: Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent). CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful.
Authors: Kaiping Zhang; Yanfang Ma; Qianling Shi; Jianfei Shen; Jinlin Wu; Xianzhuo Zhang; Panpan Jiao; Grace S Li; Xueqin Tang; René Horsleben Petersen; Calvin S H Ng; Alfonso Fiorelli; Nuria M Novoa; Benedetta Bedetti; Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri; Steven Hochwald; Toni Lerut; Alan D L Sihoe; Leandro Cardoso Barchi; Sebastien Gilbert; Ryuichi Waseda; Alper Toker; Diego Gonzalez-Rivas; Robert Fruscio; Marco Scarci; Fabio Davoli; Guillaume Piessen; Bin Qiu; Stephen D Wang; Yaolong Chen; Shugeng Gao Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2021-07